Everything the right - and the left – are getting wrong about the Online Safety Act
Disdain from the right isn't surprising. After all, tech companies will now have to assess the risk their platforms pose of disseminating the kind of racist misinformation that fuelled last year's summer riots. What has particularly struck me, though, is the backlash from progressive quarters. Online outlet Novara Media published an interview claiming the Online Safety Act compromises children's safety. Politics Joe joked that the act involves 'banning Pornhub'. New YouGov polling shows that Labour voters are even less likely to support age verification on porn websites than Conservative or Liberal Democrat voters.
I helped draft Ofcom's regulatory guidance setting out how platforms should comply with the act's requirements on age verification. Because of the scope of the act and the absence of a desire to force tech platforms to adopt specific technologies, this guidance was broad and principles-based – if the regulator prescribed specific measures, it would be accused of authoritarianism. Taking a principles-based approach is more sensible and future proof, but does allow tech companies to interpret the regulation poorly.
Despite these challenges, I am supportive of the principles of the act. As someone with progressive politics, I have always been deeply concerned about the impact of an unregulated online world. Bad news abounds: X allowing racist misinformation to spread in the name of 'free speech'; and children being radicalised or being targeted by online sexual extortion. It was clear to me that these regulations would start to move us away from a world in which tech billionaires could dress up self-serving libertarianism as lofty ideals.
Instead, a culture war has erupted that is laden with misunderstanding, with every poor decision made by tech platforms being blamed on regulation. This strikes me as incredibly convenient for tech companies seeking to avoid accountability.
So what does the act actually do? In short, it requires online services to assess the risk of harm – whether illegal content such as child sexual abuse material, or, in the case of services accessed by children, content such as porn or suicide promotion – and implement proportionate systems to reduce those risks.
It's also worth being clear about what isn't new. Tech companies have been moderating speech and taking down content they don't want on their platforms for years. However, they have done so based on opaque internal business priorities, rather than in response to proactive risk assessments.
Let's look at some examples. After the Christchurch terror attack in New Zealand, which was broadcast in a 17-minute Facebook Live post and shared widely by white supremacists, Facebook trained its AI to block violent live streams. More recently, after Trump's election, Meta overhauled its approach to content moderation and removed factchecking in the US, a move which its own oversight board has criticised as being too hasty.
Rather than making decisions to remove content reactively, or in order to appease politicians, tech companies will now need to demonstrate they have taken reasonable steps to prevent this content from appearing in the first place. The act isn't about 'catching baddies', or taking down specific pieces of content. Where censorship has happened, such as the suppression of pro-Palestine speech, this has been taking place long before the implementation of the Online Safety Act. Where public interest content is being blocked as a result of the act, we should be interrogating platforms' risk assessments and decision-making processes, rather than repealing the legislation. Ofcom's new transparency powers make this achievable in a way that wasn't possible before.
Yes, there are some flaws with the act, and teething issues will persist. As someone who worked on Ofcom's guidance on age verification, even I am slightly confused by the way Spotify is checking users' ages. The widespread adoption of VPNs to circumvent age checks on porn sites is clearly something to think about carefully. Where should age assurance be implemented in a user journey? And who should be responsible for informing the public that many age assurance technologies delete all of their personal data after their age is confirmed, while some VPN providers sell their information to data brokers? But the response to these issues shouldn't be to repeal the Online Safety Act: it should be for platforms to hone their approach.
There is an argument that the problem ultimately lies with the business models of the tech industry, and that this kind of legislation will never be able to truly tackle that. The academic Shoshana Zuboff calls this 'surveillance capitalism': tech companies get us hooked through addictive design and extract huge amounts of our personal data in order to sell us hyper-targeted ads. The result is a society characterised by atomisation, alienation and the erosion of our attention spans. Because the easiest way to get us hooked is to show us extreme content, children are directed from fitness influencers to content promoting disordered eating. Add to this the fact that platforms are designed to make people expand their networks and spend as much time on them as possible, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Again, it's a worthy critique. But we live in a world where American tech companies hold more power than many nation states – and they have a president in the White House willing to start trade wars to defend their interests.
So yes, let's look at drafting regulation that addresses addictive algorithms and support alternative business models for tech platforms, such as data cooperatives. Let's continue to explore how best to provide children with age-appropriate experiences online, and think about how to get age verification right.
But while we're working on that, really serious harms are taking place online. We now have a sophisticated regulatory framework in the UK that forces tech platforms to assess risk and allows the public to have far greater transparency over their decision-making processes. We need critical engagement with the regulation, not cynicism. Let's not throw out the best tools we have.
George Billinge is a former Ofcom policy manager and is CEO of tech consultancy Illuminate Tech
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The situation in Gaza is dire – but Starmer should be clear about who is to blame
SIR – The situation in Gaza is awful and has been for some time. However, there are two sides in this war – Israel and the terrorist group Hamas, which, let's not forget, started this conflict with its brutal attack on Israel and the taking of 251 hostages. The Israeli response to Hamas has been devastating and the innocent people of Gaza are suffering. However, if Hamas truly cares about those in Gaza and wants to end this suffering, it should release all the remaining hostages and stop using hospitals, public buildings and aid centres for military purposes, thus risking them being hit as military targets. Rather than unilaterally recognising a Palestinian state (report, July 29), if Western leaders want an end to this conflict, they must make demands of Hamas, along with Israel – or else it won't happen. Alan Carter Newcastle upon Tyne SIR – Why is it that not one country that wants to recognise a Palestinian state has made it a precondition that the Palestinian Authority drop its 'pay to slay' policy? The so-called Martyrs Fund means that, every month, the Palestinian Authority gives money to Palestinian terrorists who are in Israeli prisons, for attacking Israelis. It also gives money to the families of Palestinians killed or injured during the course of attacking Israel – money which for decades was paid on the basis that, the more serious the attack or the longer the prison sentence, the higher the payment would be. Lynton Stock London NW7 SIR – We have two very different ongoing situations in the region. One is in Gaza and one is in the West Bank. While most are concentrating on Gaza, Israeli settlers are illegally taking over land in the West Bank and building settlements there. This crime gets very little coverage, but it matters: where else could a Palestinian state be set up but on the West Bank? Before that is possible, Israel has to stop the settler activities there. This is what our Prime Minister should be concentrating his efforts on. Herbert Chappell Woking, Surrey SIR – Puntland in north-east Somalia has a government, a constitution, established borders and effective state institutions. Despite years of wrangling, it is still not recognised internationally as a state. Yet the British Government is planning to recognise a state called 'Palestine', which has none of these things except a name. For an administration full of international lawyers, this is strange indeed. Jolyon Grey Cheltenham, Gloucestershire SIR – As countries seem to be queuing up to recognise a Palestinian state (report, August 1) it might be timely to remind certain politicians that some 25 countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Lebanon, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Algeria, Iran, and Venezuela, do not actually recognise the state of Israel. Strange, that, since Israel does exist and, as it stands, Palestine's claim to statehood is ephemeral. Dr Gerald Edwards Glasgow
BBC News
20 minutes ago
- BBC News
Jeremy Corbyn's new party needs a name and it's trickier than you might think
The first thing anybody wants to know when a new political party is launched is what it's going to be Jeremy Corbyn has decided to do things differently. The former Labour leader claims more than 600,000 people have registered as supporters for the new left-wing party he is setting up with fellow independent and ex-Labour MP Zarah is, so far, a party without a reports that it was going to be called Your Party - because that's what the sign-up website is called - were quickly shot down by has said she thinks The Left or the Left Party would be a good title for the new the pair have said they want supporters to come up with a name, as part of their debate on what the new party will stand for. They will not be able to put forward candidates for election until they have registered a name with the Electoral Commission, which has strict rules about not copying other parties' names or sounding too much like apart from that, supporters have a blank canvas."The name should sum up in one simple phrase the pure essence of what the party is all about," says Sheffield University's Prof Matthew time is also ripe for a political party named for the modern world, he Flinders argues the mainstream parties' brands were forged in different times and "most young people don't really understand what Labour means, or Conservative". "The especially don't know what Liberal Democrat means."Whereas parties were once sustained by local branch or social meetings that has "eroded in a digital age, making the relationships thinner and putting more pressure on name and brand recognition to resonate with voters", Prof Flinders the commercial world, brand names are everything."There's a lot of power in a name and if you can clearly convey your point of view and use those words effectively it does a lot of work," says Laura Rogers, an executive creative director at advertising agency AMV BBDO, which counts retailer Currys and charity the RSPCA among its sweet spot, she argues, is something that works well for sharing online and sells well as "merch". Get the wrong name and you risk ridicule. Just ask the Post Office, which in 2001 wasted £2m to rebrand as Consignia, only to reverse course after the baffling name became a laughing stock. A new political party must also be alive to the risks of social media that loves to turn everything into punchlines."Make sure the first three letters don't spell a bad word," warns journalist Ash Sarkar of the left-wing media site Novara Media. "Like the word assembly can very easily be changed to 'ass'."While this may seem flippant ,"People experience and understand politics through the content they share online", Sarkar the general public to name a party would have been a disaster, leading to "Party McPartyface" says Sarkar - referencing the time Boaty McBoatface won a public poll to name a £200m polar research Bailey, co-founder of branding and design agency Baxter and Bailey, thinks Corbyn's decision to ask supporters for names is a clever stunt that has created buzz and a sense of ownership for those signing up. "It also really fits with his brand to be social and democratic with the choice of name," Bailey says."But being democratic in naming and design doesn't make a whole lot of sense," he warns. Political history is littered with cautionary tales for new parties trying to make a name for themselves. The Electoral Commission website shows a new party is registered almost every week in the UK, and most fade without making an impact at a national when a party launches with 11 MPs and a national profile they can collapse without ever really defining themselves - like The Independent Group (TIG), which launched at the height of the Brexit deadlock in 2019 as an avowedly centrist, pro–European Union political party only lasted ten months but changed its name twice, first to Change UK and then to The Independent Group for Change after petitions website threatened to sue over the Allen, the ex-Tory MP who was the first leader of Change UK, recalls her party became "lost in admin", sapping the fledgling movement of a name that speaks to your message and is not already taken by another political group of business is "trickier than you think", says Allen. Pamela Fitzpatrick, who runs the Peace and Justice Project with Corbyn, registered a party last month named "Arise" - a name drawn from one of Corbyn's favourite political strategist and pollster Chris Bruni‑Lowe, who has written a book on the history of politic slogans, would advise against using Arise as the new party's name. "Vague or overly poetic names will underperform, especially if the party is meant to be a corrective force," he his book, Bruni-Lowe says he found "voters don't reward wordplay - they reward clarity and conviction".A name must also be "clear" rather than "clever", he the most effective political brands "offer a vision or mission, not just an organisational label" and use "the electorate's own language and frustrations". Corbyn has insisted the final decision will only come after "all the responses" are in. The plan is to settle on a name at the party's founding conference, in the the discussions around the name are just a distraction, says tends to "hyper-fixate on things that don't really matter", she argues."It's not going to live or die based on a name," insists Sarkar. "It will live or die based on its political strategy.""The fact that 600,000 people have signed up to the new Corbyn project with no name is an answer to the question on how much the name matters," she a message to supporters on Friday, the party with no name said: "Make no mistake: whatever the name, it is always going to be your party." Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
US nuclear submarines 'closing in' on Russia: Trump warns 'I want to be ready' as he ramps up tension in chilling war of words with former Russian president
US President Donald Trump last night confirmed that two US Navy nuclear submarines are 'getting closer to Russia ', dramatically escalating tensions between the two countries. Mr Trump ordered the submarines, packed with nuclear warheads, towards Russian waters after an online spat with former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev – now deputy chairman of Russia's National Security Council – who said: 'Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war.' The sabre-rattling came after Mr Medvedev wrote on social media platform Telegram that Russia could invoke 'Dead Hand' – a doomsday program with the ability to automatically launch a nuclear counterstrike against major US cities, even if Moscow and President Vladimir Putin are wiped out. Mr Medvedev wrote: 'As for the talk about the 'dead economies' of India and Russia, and 'entering dangerous territory' – maybe he should recall his favourite movies about 'the walking dead,' and also remember how dangerous the so-called 'Dead Hand', that does not exist in nature, could be. 'He should remember two things: 1: Russia isn't Israel or even Iran. 2: Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don't go down the Sleepy Joe [a reference to former President Joe Biden ] road!' Writing on Truth Social, Mr Trump said: 'Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, I have ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions. Words are very important and can often lead to unintended consequences. I hope this will not be one of those instances. 'A threat was made… so we have to be very careful. We're going to protect our people. He's entering very dangerous territory!' On Friday, in an interview with cable channel Newsmax, Mr Trump added: 'The subs are getting closer to Russia. We always want to be ready. I want to make sure his words are only words and nothing more than that.' Last night the White House, Pentagon and Downing Street refused to comment on the escalating tensions, which come just days before Mr Trump's August 8 deadline for Putin to declare a ceasefire in the war against Ukraine. The US President has vowed to impose 'devastating' sanctions on Russia and her closest trading partners if his demands are not met. A source close to the President told the MoS: 'Trump is running out of patience with Russia. He promised to end the Ukraine war within 24 hours of taking office and clearly that has not happened. 'Now he's threatening to impose sanctions if Putin doesn't declare a ceasefire and come to the negotiating table to discuss peace.' While the location of the subs is unknown, the US Navy has 71 nuclear-powered submarines in its fleet, all of which can travel thousands of miles without resurfacing. By comparison, the Russian Navy fields fewer than 30 nuclear‑powered submarines. Military experts said Mr Trump will most likely have deployed two Ohio -class vessels. Each is armed with up to 20 Trident II D5 missiles that can deliver multiple thermonuclear warheads with a range of up to 7,000 miles. Sources last night told the Washington Post that Russia is 'seeking clarity' from America about Mr Trump's 'actions and intentions', with Russian officials scrambling to assess the significance of the subs' deployment. RIA Novosti, a state-controlled news agency which has been called 'Putin's mouthpiece', confirmed it had sent enquiries to the White House, Pentagon, US Central Command and the National Security Council, but had not received a response. Mr Trump's dramatic doubling down came after the deadliest Russian air strike on Kyiv this year, when 31 people were killed in a single missile strike on an apartment block in the early hours of Thursday morning. Five children, the youngest aged just two, were among the dead. Mr Trump called the air strike 'disgusting' and announced he was sending his special envoy Steve Witkoff to the region to try and negotiate a ceasefire. Russian lawmaker Viktor Vodolatsky said there are enough Russian nuclear submarines in the high seas to tackle the two American subs. 'The number of Russian nuclear submarines in the world's oceans is significantly higher than the American ones, and the subs that US President Donald Trump ordered to be redirected to the appropriate regions have long been under their control,' he said yesterday. 'So no response from the Russian Federation to the American leader's statement about the submarines is required.' Retired US Marine Colonel Mark Cancian called Mr Trump's announcement that he had sent subs steaming towards Russian waters 'highly unusual'. He said: 'This is signalling in its purest form.' Others urged restraint, saying Mr Medvedev does not speak for Putin. Oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, now a Putin critic living in London, said: 'When you see his [Mr Medvedev's] latest apocalyptic tweet about turning European capitals to dust, remember: this isn't strategic communication from the Kremlin. It's the rambling of a man drowning his terror in vodka.' The exchange of nuclear threats and references to Cold War-era systems evoked echoes of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the closest the world has come to full-scale nuclear war. The 13-day crisis occurred after Fidel Castro overthrew the US-backed government and aligned his new regime with the Soviet Union. President John F. Kennedy said US spy planes had spotted Soviet nuclear missile installations and threw a blockade around Cuba, even as Russian ships carrying additional warheads steamed towards the island, 230 miles off the tip of Florida. Nuclear bombers on both sides were put on round-the-clock alert, provoking terror in the US with schoolchildren being taught what to do in a nuclear attack. Soviet President Nikita Khrushchev eventually backed down and turned his ships around. He agreed to remove the nuclear missile installations in Cuba, in return for the US not invading the island. Mr Trump has spoken of his admiration for JFK, saying: 'He made the Soviets blink first.' A source said: 'Whether this latest move leads to a breakthrough with Putin remains to be seen.'
